[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?

Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
> agreement:
> (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
> (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
> (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
> non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the packaged
> distribution.

"this release" refers to the unmodified source tarball.
We already distribute that (in non-free, since it's not free).

> IANAL, but it would appear to me that point A applies to Debian, point B to
> RedHat's freely downloadable distribution and C to RedHat's boxed set, for
> example.
> My take on this is that RedHat, just to use an example of commercial
> distribution I know well, is even more constrained than Debian is when
> redistributing free software, since, well, they do make money out of it and
> Debian does not.
> So, from a legal standpoint, where is the problem?

License does not explicitly allow to distribute "modified binaries", i.e.
binaries produced from modified source.

[ This has been discussed many times, please read the archives ].

Reply to: